UBI has three basic properties that the CARES act fulfills none of
1. Covers cost of living for some basic standard (debatable, but should include food, water, and shelter at minimum)
2. Is available to everyone without onerous requirements or means-testing (IE is "universal")
3. Carries a reasonable expectation of continuity such that people can plan around continuing to have it
The CARES act was an emergency measure that absolutely zero people expected or intended to be permanent, it was laden with all the means-testing and bureaucratic hurdles that unemployment generally carries, and it very clearly did not provide adequate support for quite a lot of people
It's meaningless to call something a "test" when it carries none of the properties that proponents of a policy claim would make it desirable. The only perspective from which the comparison even makes sense is from that of someone who's not considered it seriously and come up with a strawman to argue against it (IE something like "UBI is the government gives people some money")
It also seems worth mentioning that I really don't buy the highly political claim that some people seem to view as self-evident: that people remained unemployed longer because they got extended unemployment benefits, rather than as a result of the massive economic shock that prompted that decision in the first place
UBI has three basic properties that the CARES act fulfills none of
1. Covers cost of living for some basic standard (debatable, but should include food, water, and shelter at minimum)
2. Is available to everyone without onerous requirements or means-testing (IE is "universal")
3. Carries a reasonable expectation of continuity such that people can plan around continuing to have it
The CARES act was an emergency measure that absolutely zero people expected or intended to be permanent, it was laden with all the means-testing and bureaucratic hurdles that unemployment generally carries, and it very clearly did not provide adequate support for quite a lot of people
It's meaningless to call something a "test" when it carries none of the properties that proponents of a policy claim would make it desirable. The only perspective from which the comparison even makes sense is from that of someone who's not considered it seriously and come up with a strawman to argue against it (IE something like "UBI is the government gives people some money")
It also seems worth mentioning that I really don't buy the highly political claim that some people seem to view as self-evident: that people remained unemployed longer because they got extended unemployment benefits, rather than as a result of the massive economic shock that prompted that decision in the first place